Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education

Today We Will discuss… What’s New for 2005 Report Card  Education YES!  Adequate Yearly Progress Preview of 2006 Report Card  State Accreditation  Adequate Yearly Progress

Education YES! until Achievement Status Achievement Change Indicators

Education YES! Achievement Status  Up to a three year Average  Weighted Index Achievement Change  Improvement (or Decline)  Based on 100% by Achievement Growth  Delayed until Indicators of School Performance  “Investments” to Improve Achievement  Self-Assessments

Achievement Status and Change Elementary  English Language Arts and Mathematics Middle School and High School  Mathematics, English language arts, Science and Social Studies

School Performance Indicators Instructional Quality Engagement Learning Opportunities Extended Learning Opportunities Continuous Improvement Family Involvement Teacher Quality/ Professional Development Student Attendance & Graduation Rate Curriculum Alignment Arts Education and Humanities Four-Year Education & Employment Plan Performance Management Systems Advanced Coursework School Facilities

Self Assessment Ratings Systematically and Consistently MeetsCriteria Progressing Toward Criteria Starting to Meet Criteria Not Yet Meeting Criteria

Indicators Detail

Indicators and Achievement

What’s New for 2005 – Education YES! Display of Evidence and Self-Ratings for the Indicators of School Performance The Education YES! Composite Grade  Indicator score cannot improve the composite score and grade by more than one letter grade more than the achievement grade

Education YES! Composite Grade

Indicator Evidence

What’s New for AYP Students Reported in an Ungraded Setting Adjustment for Measurement Error to Improve AYP Reliability Small Schools Subgroup Size for AYP Determination Nonstandard Accommodations – Count as “NOT TESTED”

Report Card Minimum n for district AYP based on 1% of enrollment if district or school enrollment is more than 3,000 Nonstandard accommodations and unethical administrations will not count as participation for AYP

1% - 2% - I’m Confused Special Education Alternate Assessment Flexibility Approved for 2005  Applies to Students in Phase 2 – Functional Independence Proposed Federal Rules Expected in the Fall 1% Exception Still Needed for Phase 1 students – most significantly disabled

AYP Reliability Margin of Error Sources of Error  Measurement Error - APPROVED Would the student score the same if tested again? Standard Error of Measurement  Sampling Error – NOT APPROVED Does the sample of students tested reflect the whole school? Standard Error of Proportion with Finite Sampling Error Correction

Measurement Error

Provisionally Proficient Students - ELA ELA Grade 4  ELA Scale Score is at or above 508 and Reading Scale Score is at or above 478 and Writing Scale Score is at or above 475 ELA Grade 7  ELA Scale Score is at or above 499 and Reading Scale Score is at or above 466 and Writing Scale Score is at or above 480

Provisionally Proficient Students - Math Grade 4 Math  Math Scale Score is above 510 and Math Scale Score is at or below 550 Grade 8 Math  Math Scale Score is above 501 and Math Scale Score is at or below 559

Preview of AYP 1 st year of 3-8 assessment AYP – Use all scores for a school  Composite Percent Proficient  Cannot ignore valid scores  Group size rule may be modified  Full Academic Year rule may be modified New AYP objectives  An impact analysis will be needed  The new objectives will be based on only 9 years to 100% proficiency

State Accreditation Issues for 2006 Student Achievement  Status – New “Cut Scores” Needed  Change – Can’t Compare Old and New Tests  Growth – Cannot measure until 2007 Indicators of School Performance  Measure the School Improvement Framework

Possible Measurement Tools School Report and Self-Assessment  Focus on Process Teacher Survey  Focus on instruction and collaboration School Leader Survey  Focus on Leadership

Possible Measurement Tools “Hard” Data  Highly Qualified from Registry of Educational Personnel Coordination With Other Processes  North Central Other Potential Tools  Parent Survey  Student Survey

Questions Do we need a parent survey? Do we need a student survey? How does it differ by grade range? Are we overlooking groups whose perspective is important? When is the appropriate time to administer the data collection?  January-February?

Possible Policy Questions Recognition of existing Processes  North Central Fair accountability for non-Title I Schools Role of AYP as a part of state accreditation

Original Indicator Revision Schedule February 2005  Presentation to State Board of Education Winter-Spring 2005  Development of Measurement Plan Fall, 2005  Field Testing Fall 2005  Data Collection on Revised Indicators Winter 2006  Report Cards Available to Start Appeals

Contact Information Paul Bielawski Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Michigan Department of Education PO Box Lansing, MI (517)